How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Ken Caldeira]

Folks,

There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research.

In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale.

If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

[Eugene I. Gordon]

I would not allocate the money to a particular area of research initially. I would use some of the money to establish a formal geoengineering society with a Chairman and board, a small paid staff and technical committees made up of geoengineers to oversee the meeting and publications. I would establish a peer-reviewed journal, an e- newsletter, an annual meeting, and a committee that operates to allocate funding in the form of grants and to oversee the grants. Members would pay a nominal dues. This is the way most scientific/engineering activities work and there is no reason to deviate from success. The only difference is overseeing grant funding for research and I would be especially careful about how it is constituted to avoid the ubiquitous practice of operating like an old boys club.

 

-gene

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Andrew Lockley]

Hi

I'd focus on clarifying SRM capabilities.

For that money, we can make test scale deployments of sulfur aerosols, bright water and cloud brightening.

At present our understanding of the basic science of all of these is poor, so engineering appropriate delivery technology is much less relevant than testing the basic physics and chemistry. One or more of the ideas might turn out to be completely useless

Likewise, we need to test the modelling more closely.  In particular we have a very poor understanding of non linear climate change, especially as regards carbon excursions from the cryosphere, resulting feedbacks and consequences, e.g. clathrate gun, methane residence times, etc. Not knowing when to deploy is the single most serious problem.

Finally, we need to combine those two results into a sensible SRM programme and model it properly. At that point we can spend any remaining funds on engineering r and d and then we're ready to scale up for deployments. Engineering probably can't be done for that money.

A

On 18 Apr 2011 16:09, "Ken Caldeira" <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:

[Eugene I. Gordon]

It is better practice when building a house to start with a plan and then a foundation. I described the necessary plan/foundation in a prior e-mail. Why would you want to bet the bundle at the racetrack?

[Josh Horton]

Ken,

Here's one suggestion:

As a general rule, I would favor SRM over CDR for short-term funding,
for a couple of reasons. First, the technical attributes of SRM mean
that it would be called upon if there was a need for immediate action
- I think CDR has to be viewed as a medium- to long-term strategy.
Second, and related, as currently conceived, the deployment of CDR
techniques will depend to a great extent on the policy context, in
particular the existence of mandatory and robust carbon markets - as
we are all aware, these are not likely to develop in the near future.

Given this, I would propose splitting funding three ways:

- $3.3m for general modeling efforts, tailored to meet needs specific
to geoengineering research - this support would benefit both SRM and
CDR
- $3.3m for stratospheric aerosols - perhaps targeting key issues like
variable aerosol effectiveness (nanoparticles?) - good preliminary
work exists on delivery systems
- $3.3m for marine cloud brightening, probably focused on spray
nozzles

This rough distribution would spread the wealth in a way that supports
basic research while honing in on key technical challenges that must
be addressed to mitigate the risk of a climate emergency.

Josh Horton


On Apr 18, 11:08 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

[Fulkerson, William]

Dear Ken et al.
Good question.
I would allocate the money to the Arctic.  The loss of summer sea ice is real and happening rapidly (within a century from linear extrapolations).  I would devote half the money to finding out how serious the loss of summer sea ice would be for the ecology of
the region and the other half on research to evaluate the negatives of regional SRM techniques including tropospheric sulfates.  The SRM evaluation should include analysis of the difficulty of getting permission to do something: i.e. From the UN or by agreement from the countries of the region.  The first step would be to find out how much money is presently being spent on R&D in the region, e.g. on clathrates.
With best regards,
Bill

Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow and LERDWG Chair
Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment
University of Tennessee
311 Conference Center Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4138
wf...@utk.edu <mailto:wf...@utk.edu>
865-974-9221, -1838 FAX
Home
865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL 
2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771

---

From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: <kcal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700
To: Google Group <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Holly Buck]

Greetings,

 

If I wanted to research geoengineering, I wouldn’t form an formal geoengineering society, because the press releases it would trigger would likely be counter-productive to my research.  Plus, my sense here in DC is that the USG is still not really ready to have geoengineering officially on the table.  An official, federally-funded geoengineering board would have foreign policy implications that no one really wants.

I would, however, give a small portion, say 10%, to social science research investigating sentiment and knowledge about how people and institutions in developing countries feel about geoengineering.  It would be particularly interesting to know how people in Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, China, India, and other key regional players are approaching the topic.  I would also put funding into cross-border collaboration efforts. 

Both of these might not seem important compared to test-scale deployments and modeling.  But done right, the social science research and collaboration would pay off, because no amount of good natural science research will likely be actualized if the political climate is hostile to it.  We don’t actually know whether the developing world would dismiss geoengineering as a first-world cop-out of mitigating emissions, or embrace it as a humanitarian intervention that will benefit them locally and allow them to keep developing.  Solid data on this, and international cooperation, would be key in going forward with any actual deployment, should the worst-case scenarios materialize.

 

Best,

Holly Buck

 

 

Holly Jean Buck  /  410.227.3316 (home)  /  holly.j...@gmail.com

Note: The opinions expressed are personal and do not represent the views of any institutions or organizations of affiliation.

[James R. Fleming]

Ken,

First of all, send the list of who in Washington has $10 M and wants to spend it on geoengineering.

Second, recall the line in the AMS AGU Policy statement calling for "study of historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering"

Since the greatest risks seem to include rending the social fabric if someone actually deploys geoengineering, I think research on the social dimensions is paramount.

I would be happy to convene some social science meetings for $ 0.1-1 M

Jim

James Rodger Fleming

Professor and Director

STS Program, Colby College

5881 Mayflower Hill

Waterville, ME  04901

Ph: 207-859-5881

Fax: 207-859-5846

http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming

http://web.colby.edu/jfleming

From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
Reply-To: <kcal...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2011 08:08:25 -0700
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[vogle...@gmail.com]

Hello,

I would recommend that this very limited budget be spent on the development of an aerosol delivery design which would be flexible enough in use to attract other sources of funding. Most, if not all, SRM aerosol injection proposals have been tightly focused on the primary goals of delivery at the lowest cost and highest long term dependability. Yet, this may be an opportunity to team up with other closely related proposals and efforts to establish a funding pool.

The SRM Injection Delivery System I have in mind would be the High Altitude Tether.

Here are a few examples of how that type of delivery system can be used by other efforts.

1) The Jason Advisory Group has put out a technical report "Methods for Remote Determination of CO2 Emissions". A tethered high altitude in situ system could be a useful platform for some of the proposed CO2 monitoring systems. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf

2) The NCAR High Altitude Observatory (HAO) web page lists 12 programs which many may be able to find a use for a long term in situ platform at the altitudes needed for SRM Injection. Multiple SRM Injection tethers would represent a very unique general atmospheric interferometer research tool. http://www.hao.ucar.edu/research/aim.php

3) Commercial Regional Telecommunications. Selling platform payload space to telecommunications companies could generate substantial matching funds. Even if the payloads were only used as "emergency backups" to the terrestrial tower network. Another approach to funding further research would be to install transponders and compete directly within that market.

I could add a number of other potential partnerships to this list, but, I hope the point is made. The small yearly budget would be important in that it gives potential partners the assurance that this work is being given some serious thought. The development of a highly detailed computer (engineering) model of a multi use high atmospheric tether and associated systems can be an important focus for building group expertise. It can also be a focus for building governmental/industrial/scientific cooperation on the SRM climate intervention option.

If this "seed capital" is to be offered, make it grow....don't eat the seed.

[Oliver Morton]

Broad RFPs for multi-year consortia -- maybe four three-year $5million grants to begin with. Define the goals that the research should support -- eg development and assessment of a 1W/m^2 (global average) SRM technology --  not the technologies that should be used. Provide a way for the scoring process to reward breadth of approach and ambition as well as (but not in place of) technical excellence. Appoint a program manager with a proven track and leadership record. (This is a bit Darpa-like -- not such a bad thing)

In parallel, some two year single investigator grants, given on the basis that can roll them into a consortium if you think that's wise. Some focus here on generics eg modelling of scenarios. Include social sciences and humanities here. 

Budget for an intensive workshop stage for all grantees 18 months in. Issue a new RFP at the two-year mark for two new consortia. Extension for two best performing of the original consortia at three years, perhaps forcing some refugees form the salon des refuses onto the winning teams. (Program managers earn their keep that way)

A specific protected budget for single investigators or small collaborations working on technologies and approaches with a so-far non-existent or at least minimal publication record. Favourite example -- systems for stopping glaciers. Cirrus management of outgoing IR might also fit. There are various geoengineering technologies that don't fit into CDR/SRM, such as those that seek to reallocate energy flows within the system. At the moment they are largely ignored. Expanding the universe of discourse this way should be a priority.

Always, in general, define the questions, not the technologies you already see as the answers.

o

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O

Oliver Morton
Energy and Environment Editor
The Economist

+44 7971 064 059

O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O

[Bill]

A useful, very modest investment would be in a research registry, a
central repository where folks can post projects, proposals, results,
etc. (or at least notices of projects and pointers to more
information). Should be public and open, so as to meet transparency
often discussed (as at Asilomar) and cover all approaches, from
theoretical to field trials, and from and physical to social. Could be
done on a shoe-string, I could probably invest a savvy undergrad this
summer to help set it up, maybe others? but the community needs to
design it, establish some policies, and it could use a few dollars for
good structure and web hosting.
Bill Travis
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado

On Apr 18, 9:08 am, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

[rongre...@comcast.net]

Ken with few ccs

   1.  Thanks for reporting this $10 M news (and probably for scouting it up)

    2.  Oliver's note (below) comes closest to my own of the ideas so far put forth.  It may be presumptive to assume multi year funding (and anything over $10 million in the first year), but why not assume a continuing effort?  I endorse the idea of three parallel SRM efforts.  I hope one would be "Bright Water" - as it has been more on this list recently ((and positively) than any other - and it seems to have special relevance to the Arctic.  Oliver's call for some independent efforts is also worthy.

    3.  Oliver didn't mention the Arctic.  I put in my vote for limiting activities to the Alaskan portion of the Arctic.  Rationale - Alaska is way ahead of the rest of the country in recognizing something is happening.  We can probably do almost nothing soon in Canada, Russia, Greenland, Iceland and Norway - but we should try immediately to get parallel efforts going in all.  Some funds should be reserved to encourage their attendance at events.

    4.  Oliver calls out CDR in the context of some possibilities that are neither CDR or SRM.  I would lump these possibilities with CDR and reserve perhaps 15-20% for those.   Rationale - need for low cost and speed, but also need buy-in from CDR-folk.  Any big activity will suffer politically .if CDR is not coupled with SRM, and if there is not a darn good reason for leaving something out. One option alone would be a disaster, especially if theri effects can be shown to be additive and not duplicative.

    5.  Oliver mentions DARPA.  I think it would (stronger than "might") be wise to ask them to lead.  Rationale - politics.  Few AGW  critics (eg Watts) are going to say anything negative about DARPA.  In this regard, I see that DARPA met at Stanford in 2009 on this topic - so you should be in a position to know if they would be interested (as a favor to the actual agency with funds). 
      [ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html ]

    6.  Carrying politics further,  I hope you or someone can soon alert Alaska's 2 R's and 1 D in the Congress.  This whole package should not be sold as having anything to do with AGW.  All three of the elected representatives seem to agree that temperaures are rising rapidly. in Alaska and they must have some appreciation of pending methane release.   None want to talk about causality - and we don't need to either. I believe they would not object strongly to money being spent primarily in Alaska.   Your project (everything discussed on this list) needs political cover.  If you can get the idea attributed to Rush or Glenn, all the better.  Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Newt Gingrich might even find it politically expedient to weigh in;  we are not talking taxes here.

    7.  Native Americans may/could/should have a role in this - especially as regards CDR use of dead/fallen trees and re-vegetation with high reflectivity biomass.  They make up the population most impacted.  More political cover.

   8.  Last is the issue of speed.  I hope you are talking about this fiscal year's funding - and it would be great if you/DARPA could have some experimental results by the end of FY11.  This will only be possible with something autocratic - and DARPA seems to know how to do that.  But they will certainly listen to informal proposals - presumably from teams.  One month to do that should be enough - being informal.

   9.  Re speed and expertise I urge giving the modeling task (mentioned by several) to Prof. Wieslaw Maslowski.  I think he is the only modeler (and he has a big team) who has been correctly predicting the timing of an ice-free Arctic  (now apparently at 2016 +/- 3 years).  See
     http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/Maslowski_CV.htm     and       http://www.oc.nps.edu/NAME/name.html
  Having a connection with the US Navy has some other advantages - but those are not the reason for pushing his involvement.  He knows the Arctic intimately.


Again, thanks for very welcome news (and your behind the scenes searching?).

Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Oliver Morton" <Oliver...@economist.com>
To: kcal...@gmail.com
Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 5:36:33 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

Broad RFPs for multi-year consortia -- maybe four three-year $5million grants to begin with. Define the goals that the research should support -- eg development and assessment of a 1W/m^2 (global average) SRM technology --  not the technologies that should be used. Provide a way for the scoring process to reward breadth of approach and ambition as well as (but not in place of) technical excellence. Appoint a program manager with a proven track and leadership record. (This is a bit Darpa-like -- not such a bad thing)

In parallel, some two year single investigator grants, given on the basis that can roll them into a consortium if you think that's wise. Some focus here on generics eg modelling of scenarios. Include social sciences and humanities here. 

Budget for an intensive workshop stage for all grantees 18 months in. Issue a new RFP at the two-year mark for two new consortia. Extension for two best performing of the original consortia at three years, perhaps forcing some refugees form the salon des refuses onto the winning teams. (Program managers earn their keep that way)

A specific protected budget for single investigators or small collaborations working on technologies and approaches with a so-far non-existent or at least minimal publication record. Favourite example -- systems for stopping glaciers. Cirrus management of outgoing IR might also fit. There are various geoengineering technologies that don't fit into CDR/SRM, such as those that seek to reallocate energy flows within the system. At the moment they are largely ignored. Expanding the universe of discourse this way should be a priority.

Always, in general, define the questions, not the technologies you already see as the answers.

o

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu> wrote:

Folks,

There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public funds available to support SRM and CDR research.

In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest scale.

If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

--
O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O

Oliver Morton
Energy and Environment Editor
The Economist

+44 7971 064 059

O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O

[John Latham]

Hello Ken,

I think the "urgency argument" points towards early funding of research into
promising SRM techniques.

The three ideas that have significant likelihood of being quantitatively adequate,
yet need substantially more research (and therefore funding), particularly regarding
technological issues and possible adverse ramifications of deployment, are stratospheric
seeding, marine cloud brightening and Russell Seitz's micro-bubbles.

All Best, John.

________________________________________
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [geoengi...@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ken Caldeira [kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:08 PM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

Folks,

Best,

Ken

___________________________________________________
Ken Caldeira

+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu<mailto:kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>

[John Gorman]

The possibility of very serious problems (methane/ sea ice/ clathrates/ permafrost etc) in and around the Arctic in the next few years (5 or 10) may be low (5%, 10%, ? ) but I don’t think anyone can suggest that the possibility is zero.

 

I would therefore spend the ten million dollars on getting some SRM techniques ready for implementation. This means development and testing of a few promising techniques eg

 

-SO2 various distribution methods. Atmospheric testing essential to evaluate practicality and details eg droplet agglometation .

 

-My silica from tetra ethyl silicate in aircraft fuel idea. Burners must be developed. Could fighter after-burners be used? Concentration for ideal particle size must be evaluated.

 

-The Salter/Latham cloud brightening system. Spray units must be developed, tested and manufactured in quantity (for mounting on warships ?)

 

For each of these full atmospheric testing should be done. Not to the level of influencing climate but to ensure that the particles/droplets can be distributed in the quantity and location required. Stocks of equipment and materials would be needed for implementation within a couple of months.

 

This testing would not influence climate even locally. The fact that climate and global warming would be controlled by this, relies on the evidence from the full global tests done by the thirteen large volcanic eruptions in the last 250 years.

 

Implementation could only be decided by a Security Council Resolution and there would be known and unknown implications. It would be a decision in an emergency.

 

Of course I would prefer it if climate scientists and politicians got real and accepted that emissions reductions will be too slow to avoid serious dangers but his doesn’t seem likely in the near future.

 

Regards

 

John gorman

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Ken Caldeira

To: geoengineering

Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:08 PM

Subject: [geo] How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

--

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Thank you Holly Jean Buck*. You apparently totally miss the point; morality is not the current issue in geoengineering nor should it be. I am a simple scientist trying to help people who are interested in doing R&D in Geoengineering to have a formal vehicle for exchanging technical information, interacting, and obtaining funding for their R&D work; the same way that other scientific/engineering disciplines have at their disposal. Currently it does not. ONE DOES NOT, -- NOT DO GEOENGINEERING BECAUSE ITS ULTIMATE  APPLICATION RAISES POTENTIAL MORAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES.

 

You embroider the concept with all sorts of political/moral implications that were not suggested or implied. If you currently wanted to do R&D in geoengineering you most likely would not get funding, not have an official place to publish or get invited to meetings to present your work. Too many are afraid geoengineering will mess up their cozy R&D funding for conventional climate science or their plans for making lots of money managing CO₂ emissions. (I am not suggesting you are.) I did not suggest that the proposed Geoengineering Society would engage in political activity or that geoengineers would run around trying to convince the world to actually employ geoengineering. Do microbiologist have to contend with governments interested in deploying germ warfare, and people like yourself who would view the possibility as a moral threat? Is this another stem cell threat to religious moralists?

 

Rather this group would develop the science and engineering principles that would allow intelligent discussion of the options by government, business interests and moralists when there is a solid science and engineering basis to discuss. You mentioned data and international cooperation for going forward. You mentioned the developing world and its attitude. Spoken like a true citizen of the world, not meant to be derogatory, but I am sorry to say, who apparently has not a clue concerning what I am talking about. Geopolitics and the science of geoengineering are not the same and one does not stop geoengineering R&D because it ultimately has political and moral implications. Galileo!!!!!!

 

Gene Gordon

 

*Holly Jean Buck is a geography student at Lund University in Sweden, working on both a Master of Social Science in Human Ecology and a Master in Geographic Information Systems. She also holds a bachelor's degree in English, and has worked in teaching writing, journalism, science education, and radar mapping. Her research interests include the political economy of oil, geographies of financialization, narratives of modernity, and representations of climate engineering in the media.    website: http://www.charting-sustainability.org

[Eugene I. Gordon]

Prof. Fleming believes the social implications of geoengineering pose a great risk  and we must first understand the social dimensions of actual deployment. Thank God the US did not waste time on such moralizing before starting the Manhattan Project. If we had, we would have lost an estimated million people in ultimately defeating Japan. Indeed the social cost to Japan of use of the bomb was great but far less than it would have been if it had not been developed and deployed. Moreover, a small delay in defeating Germany might have been catastrophic since they were also developing one.

 

Nothing wrong with studying the historical, ethical, legal, and social implications of geoengineering but when it gets real hot and dry as it will in time because nature with some help from mankind  is on that trajectory, rending the social fabric takes on a different meaning.

 

-gene

[M V Bhaskar]

I would allocate it to a Ocean Fertilization type of project but in
the Chesapeake Bay.

For $ 10 Million we can clean up the bay of excess nutrients and
increase the Dissolved Oxygen level for 1 to 2 months.

This will prove the impact of our fertilization process will have in
Oceans.

The carbon that is absorbed in the Bay would not be 'sequestered' but
the process that would take place in oceans due to our process would
be demonstrated.

Scientists working on Ocean Fertilization did lab trials and then
undertook ocean experiments, skipping the intermediate steps of lakes
and estuaries. This gap is to be filled in.

best regards

Bhaskar

On Apr 18, 8:08 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

[Oliver Morton]

I think giving the whole thing to Darpa would be a great mistake. The symbolism of the D in Darpa would not be lost on international politicians and potential participants (to say nothing of Greenpeace). And I think designing policy specifically to be Anthony-Watts proof is a mug's game. Much better to innovate in another context than to take a Darpa program architecture, and the baggage of the pentgon connections, off the shelf. 

[Josh Horton]

I agree, this would be a grave mistake. There would be no surer way
of firing up international political opposition to geoengineering,
mobilizing civil society, encouraging suspicion and hostility, even
dragging in ENMOD. Imagine how China would react! Whether or not the
military has the appropriate capacity, handing it to DARPA would be
hugely counterproductive.

Josh

> >> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu

> O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O O=C=O- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Holly Buck]

Greetings,

 

Eugene, I didn't say anything about morality, as the topic of this discussion is finance.

 

If I was a atmospheric scientist, I'd want to invest a small part of my $10 million in networking with scientists in developing countries, because that's where capacity and interest might be in a few decades.  The US is a leader in scientific research in part because previous generations invested in developing science & technology capacity.  Unfortunately, we don't see that same type of committment from today's leaders on the Hill.  Meanwhile, China plans to invest 2.5% of its GDP in science research by 2020, India is increasing capacity, and Brazil is an emerging leader in biosciences.  Moreover, many of these countries will face greater hardship from climate change than the US will, and may have stronger political will to support geoengineering research.  A small investment in research cooperation now could have great benefits in the future-- funding-wise and scientific, as a wider community may generate stronger ideas.  And if it turns out that the BRIC countries actually are open to geoengineering, and they frame it positively, that could very well change the tenor of the Euro-American discourse.  But a "formal vehicle" based in the US and funded by the USG is unlikely, as it would be a PR mess.

 

Geopolitics and geoengineering science are not one and the same, but neither can they be separated.  The practice of science always takes place in a social and political context.  I'd bet Galileo didn't think being a scientist was "simple".  If I was a scientist, I'd do my best to work with those social and political nuances to secure a sympathetic funding climate for my research. 

 

Best,

Holly

[Lane, Lee O.]

I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related civilian R&D entities. Many of course have able people, but the congressional tendency to use them as sources of pork barrel politics is a problem. DARPA has not entirely escaped this disease, but it has suffered less than the civilian agencies.

 

Prior questions:

• Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.
• Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them. 
• Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did?
• Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if not, why bother trying?

I am not sure, but I tend to suspect that the answers to all these questions might be negative. In that case, the point might be moot.

Lee

---

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com on behalf of Josh Horton
Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 11:36 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Joshua Horton]

Hi Lee,

 

Here's an attempt:

 

*
       Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.  probably not (certainly not me)
*
       Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them.  maybe, they've done it before - http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html
*
       Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did?  China probably could not make a credible commitment of this sort, but it certainly could not if the US entrusted geoengineering to the Defense Department.  Assigning climate engineering to DARPA would virtually invite China to securitize geoengineering, as opposed to supporting a mixed civilian/military program that would be preferable for all - I think a mixed Chinese program is entirely plausible.
*
       Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if not, why bother trying?  Probably not, but why needlessly antagonize?  It's worth trying because these groups help shape the overarching political environment.

Here's some additional text I wrote for SMRGI: "Similarly, military involvement in SRM research is deeply controversial and liable to fracture any international consensus in support of geoengineering.  The “weaponization” of advanced technologies is a familiar phenomenon in research and development, and many scientists, policymakers, and other observers have raised serious concerns about the consequences of military participation in SRM research activities.  The involvement of defense ministries could reduce transparency, create mistrust, destabilize regional security architectures, and possibly violate provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).  Military participation would promote a climate of suspicion, wariness, and doubt certain to impede attempts at fostering international collaboration.  Again, in order to ensure a broad consensus behind any eventual decision to deploy SRM, research governance arrangements should prohibit military establishments and related defense agencies from taking part in SRM research."

 

Josh

 

 

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Lane, Lee O. <leo...@crai.com> wrote:

I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related civilian R&D entities. Many of course have able people, but the congressional tendency to use them as sources of pork barrel politics is a problem. DARPA has not entirely escaped this disease, but it has suffered less than the civilian agencies.

Prior questions:

*

       Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.

*

       Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them.

*

       Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did?

*

[Rau, Greg]

OK, taking a giant swan dive into the fray, I think

1. it’s great that there may be a few on the Hill and in the administration that might take SRM and CDR R&D seriously
2. if money is to become available there needs to be a stakeholders meeting and ultimately an advisory panel to set priorities
3. it will be extremely unfortunate if SRM and CRD are lumped together as they pose very different risks, benefits, space- and time-frames
4. if such an activity is to become formalized (legitimized?) let’s take this opportunity to drop  “geoengineering” to describe the above and let’s call it what it is: SRM, CRD, climate management, carbon management, or whatever since some of the approaches have noting to do with “geo” or “engineering” but are still branded with the now politically loaded GE label.
5. How about ARPA-E as a home?  DARPA without the “D”.  But ARPA-E would have to drop its current requirement for matching funds to avoid forcing the initial research to be tied to corporate ROI.
   

-Greg

[vogle...@gmail.com]

The mission statement which started this thread, 'maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10" is deceptively simple. It does not ask how to build a consensus. It does not ask how to build a foundation for the field of GE. It does not ask how to support multiple approaches to climate risk reduction. Nor does it ask how the effort should be organized and who should do the work. It simply seeks to "maximize" risk reduction with a $10m yearly budget.

My read on that mission statement (and the possible back story prompting it) is that this may be an effort to cut through the tangled Gordian Knot this issue has become. All of the responses offered in this thread have admiral merit and will need to be addressed...... eventually! The question at hand, however, is not that broad. It simply asks "How" and "Why".

To maximize such a small budget will require extreme focus and leveraging the investment in creative ways. The JASON Advisory Group is an example of such an effort (big bang for little bucks). If you are not familiar with it's history, I highly recommend a quick Google search. We may not have the luxury of time to sort out all that can be done or should be done. We may be lucky just to have the time to choose the most likely method of climate intervention and get a system prepared and tested for eventual deployment.

Leveraging the investment will be important. A seed capital investment of $10m can not float, for long, a start up internet company selling bubble gum. By choosing an SRM method which lends itself to other uses, that seed money can be amplified. Only one SRM method has that potential, Direct Injection. A High Tether can be deployed and made operational without actually using it for SRM. It can be made operational and financially self supporting through meeting the needs of potential "customers" (as I pointed out in my first post on this thread). Having the hardware operational is essential!!! The actual use of the hardware for SRM will be decided in due course by the progression of Global Warming.

If this innovative approach to maximizing the amount of climate risk reduction is to succeed, it will need to be....yes....highly innovative. Innovation is never without risk, it is never without controversy, it is never without setbacks and it is never without winners and losers. We may have a chance to build an emergency life line, let's not drown while debating on how best to tie the anchoring knot.

The High Tether method my not be the best solution in the long run, no climate intervention method is as they all are emergency methods at best. The tether option, however, is our best starting point for this limited budget. If the High Tether Option can be focused upon, it may potentially generate both public confidence in Geoengineering, as well as, future funding for continued R&D. I would have no problem with the USG owning/operating the hardware as a pure research tool. I would also have no problem with the USG supporting a JASON like round table on further R&D. I would have a problem with the USG sitting on the sidelines when so much can be done for so little of an investment. It is time to take that deep breath, lean into the storm winds and take that first step.

On Apr 19, 2011 9:21am, "Lane, Lee O." <leo...@crai.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I too, worry about the factors that you and Oliver cite, but the choice seems more ambiguous than you make it sound. DARPA is at least competent. I am not sure that the same can be said of any of the climate related civilian R&D entities. Many of course have able people, but the congressional tendency to use them as sources of pork barrel politics is a problem. DARPA has not entirely escaped this disease, but it has suffered less than the civilian agencies.
>
>  
>
> Prior questions:
>
>
>
>
> Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.
>
>
> Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them. 
>
>
> Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did?
>
>
> Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if not, why bother trying?
>
>
>
> I am not sure, but I tend to suspect that the answers to all these questions might be negative. In that case, the point might be moot.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
>

[Lane, Lee O.]

Well, Josh, I think that you are right. We are all going to have mixed civil military programs, i.e. those few countries that have militaries capable enough to play a useful role in SRM will use them for this purpose. BTW, those are pretty much the only ones to which we need pay real attention. 

 

So, if the US wants to involve DARPA, what business is it of China, and if China wants to involve the PLA, as they certainly will, the US quite simply has no say in the matter. The whole notion of weaponization of SRM is nonsense; so we shouldn't let it drive our organizational choices -- or our attitudes to other countries' efforts.

 

That said, I am not arguing that DARPA is the right place to center SRM, but categorically ruling out the participation of our best R&D shop on the grounds that including them might offend China, or Greenpeace, or some Third World kleptocracy goes too far. I attach a recent piece on the governance issues. 

 

Lee

 

 

 

---

From: Joshua Horton [mailto:joshuah...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 1:43 PM
To: Lane, Lee O.
Cc: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Lane, Lee O.]

Point well taken. Concentrate on SRM. Forget CDR for now. Don't waste money studying governance. A better sense of that issue will emerge as we learn more about the capabilities and limits of the technologies.

 

Lee Lane

---

From: vogle...@gmail.com [mailto:vogle...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 2:22 PM
To: Lane, Lee O.
Cc: joshuah...@gmail.com; geoengineering
Subject: Re: RE: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[Mike MacCracken]

While a tether may be a useful way to do stratospheric aerosol injection, it is not at all clear to me that that is the next step to be taking with a limited amount of research funding. Instead, as I indicated in my earlier message, I think there are a number of impacts than global average warming to determine if we can limit in starting out using techniques in the troposphere or surface. So, it seems to me the first thing to be done is to figure out our objective and why rather than to focus on a tool that may not be useful in dealing with the problem to be addressed. On deciding what the objective should be, it seems to be a more broadly based group than JASON is needed—unless what they are going to do is put forth several options of what the physics (and chemistry and biology) could be worked to accomplish, and then the broader group decides among options.

Mike MacCracken

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. MacCracken, Thank you for the feedback.

What I have clumsily tried to say is that with such a small budget, finding innovative ways to bring more funding to the table should be the top priority. Attracting follow on funding may be the best means of securing a long term federal commitment. The original post on this thread indicated that this will be set up under a single department and thus this proposed program budget will be subject to the overall needs of that department. If you're going to be the red headed stepchild sitting at the dinner table, it is best that you find a way to help buy the food.

This train of thought is similar to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) programs offered by all federal departments. They look for an ability within a proposal to become self supporting. I believe you are correct in that surface and tropospheric methods need serious attention. But, can they generate external financial interest? Can they help feed themselves at an early stage?

 

The tether option does have uses other than SRM, unlike any other proposal. I believe this first funding department would welcome the funding cooperation from other departments. But, you have to give the other departments something that is firm and fits their mission. The commercial side of the investment equation will need the same. We have a number of promising SRM methods and more will be put on the table. It is, however, the development of a secure and dependable means of funding that is fundamentally needed. 

The High Tether Option can be inclusive of other projects. No other SRM options has that quality.   

I proposed the JASON model for reasons that you point out. They should, however, consider the broader issues of budget restraints, public perception and issues of governance. The broader community can and will make their views known. But, some entity has to make the go...no go... call (eventually). There will never be an over ridding consensus on most of the issues at hand.

It will be interesting to see how this initial funding offer is decided as it will set the tone for future offers from both public and private concerns. If this turns into a nasty and confused feeding frenzy, it may put an end to any future funding considerations. Being able to show focus, self reliance and a willingness to take well considered risks is the best that we can do. Let's hope that this can be done.

Thanks again for taking the time to respond.    

    

 

   

   

--

Michael Hayes

360-708-4976

http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site 

 

[Nathan Currier]

Hi, Ken –

I guess I’d add to the many posts on this thread – don’t forget to
think both defensively and offensively, and since the amount of money
is small, ways in which some of it might be able to act like seed
money should be of interest. In the worst case, what could happen in a
few years? Arctic ice will be getting much worse than now and there
will be more significant methane escape from the ESAS, some of the
taliks starting to let out really significant and dense methane
plumes. While most on this site probably wouldn’t even deign to call
it geoengineering, various kinds of ‘methane suckers’ and ‘trappers’
would be a very good thing to have in such a case, since even if a
‘true’ geoengineering approach were developed, it might be hard to get
any world body willing to let it be used, which wouldn’t at all be
true of the ‘methane suckers.’ I don’t think there’s been much work on
this, and I know it could easily get forgotten altogether.

I’m certainly aware that you can’t really control climate effectively
at all in such a manner, but it might be one the most helpful things
for a short while, and funds could perhaps be leveraged to develop
this. That is, you could possibly with a little bit of your research
funds convene a cooperative panel and program of engineers from the
prime fossil fuel interests (Exxon, BP, Gazprom, Chevron Canada, etc.)
who would then collaboratively design various forms of equipment for
getting as much methane as rapidly as possible, and a plan and a set
of rules for then equally sharing their spoils amongst themselves in
case of an emergency. It could possibly pay for itself for the
corporations, would appear good for their corporate images, and it
would create a line of defense for us all, if things start to get
worse more quickly than they already are. That’s what I mean by
defensive thinking.

On Apr 19, 2:47 pm, "Lane, Lee O." <leol...@crai.com> wrote:
> Well, Josh, I think that you are right. We are all going to have mixed civil military programs, i.e. those few countries that have militaries capable enough to play a useful role in SRM will use them for this purpose. BTW, those are pretty much the only ones to which we need pay real attention.
>
> So, if the US wants to involve DARPA, what business is it of China, and if China wants to involve the PLA, as they certainly will, the US quite simply has no say in the matter. The whole notion of weaponization of SRM is nonsense; so we shouldn't let it drive our organizational choices -- or our attitudes to other countries' efforts.
>
> That said, I am not arguing that DARPA is the right place to center SRM, but categorically ruling out the participation of our best R&D shop on the grounds that including them might offend China, or Greenpeace, or some Third World kleptocracy goes too far. I attach a recent piece on the governance issues.  
>
> Lee
>
> ________________________________
>

> From: Joshua Horton [mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tue 4/19/2011 1:43 PM
> To: Lane, Lee O.
> Cc: geoengineering
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?
>
> Hi Lee,
>
> Here's an attempt:
>
> *
>        Does anybody on this group actually have a say about what agency controls the money? That seems doubtful to me.  probably not (certainly not me)
> *

>        Would DARPA want to do the job? They do actually have serious work of their own, and SRM might be a no-win situation for them.  maybe, they've done it before -http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive-milit.html

> *
>        Is China willing to commit to the principle that the PLA have nothing to do with China's own climate engineering research -- when they decide to undertake such an effort -- if they are not already embarked on it? Would we want them to make such a commitment? Would we believe them if they did?  China probably could not make a credible commitment of this sort, but it certainly could not if the US entrusted geoengineering to the Defense Department.  Assigning climate engineering to DARPA would virtually invite China to securitize geoengineering, as opposed to supporting a mixed civilian/military program that would be preferable for all - I think a mixed Chinese program is entirely plausible.
> *
>        Is there any chance of placating Greenpeace and their ilk, and, if not, why bother trying?  Probably not, but why needlessly antagonize?  It's worth trying because these groups help shape the overarching political environment.
>
> Here's some additional text I wrote for SMRGI: "Similarly, military involvement in SRM research is deeply controversial and liable to fracture any international consensus in support of geoengineering.  The "weaponization" of advanced technologies is a familiar phenomenon in research and development, and many scientists, policymakers, and other observers have raised serious concerns about the consequences of military participation in SRM research activities.  The involvement of defense ministries could reduce transparency, create mistrust, destabilize regional security architectures, and possibly violate provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD).  Military participation would promote a climate of suspicion, wariness, and doubt certain to impede attempts at fostering international collaboration.  Again, in order to ensure a broad consensus behind any eventual decision to deploy SRM, research governance arrangements should prohibit military establishments and related defense agencies from taking part in SRM research."
>
> Josh
>

> ...
>
> read more »
>
>  LeeLane--USNationalInterest--411.pdf
> 760KViewDownload